#LegacySystems: Why ‘tech for good’ is not good enough, Part 2 — Tech exacerbates inequality
Tech presence and usage entrench inequality, through the hardware we use, the digital world we build, and how we use them both.
Tech is an asset, and an enabler; like all resources, it is an indicator and entrencher of wealth. Inequality both of access and of deployment widens social divides, and this is apparent across the production of tech, the skills required to work with it, the way it serves users, and its enmeshment in our lives.
The virtual is also physical
Today, it is easy to think of digital technology (the web, AI, software, apps) as ‘virtual’, but the digital does not exist on its own; it’s all running on physical computers somewhere. We therefore ought to consider not only digital technology, but the hardware which hosts, runs and supports it, when discussing its impact. Unfortunately, it is impossible to source hardware in an entirely (verifiably) ‘fair trade’ manner. Modern day slavery and other exploitative practices fuel the creation of our phones, computers and data storage, and both are embedded — almost inextricably — within the supply chain. Our digital consumption and progress depend upon raw materials such as cobalt (for lithium-ion batteries), mica and metals such as gold and tin, and billions of dollars’ worth of electronic goods are ‘at risk’ of being the product of modern day slavery — including forced labour, enslaving children, and human trafficking. While demand grows and resources are depleted, those whose abuse the market depends on, are even further abused… ad infinitum.
Our digital lives as they currently operate rely on unethical and abusive business practices, to host what we do every day. Our virtual world has real life impacts… And that’s before we’ve even pressed the on button.
Once we *have* turned our machines on, the digital world itself makes things worse, too.
Digital capability: a widening divide
Digital skills needs, and the associated job displacement, are rapidly changing the employment landscape. Many are losing work to AI and automation — like previous Industrial Revolutions — as their existing skills are no longer in demand. Sadly, not enough is being done to plug the gap between skills needs and learning opportunities, and many are being left behind, in terms of employment, salary, and so quality of life.
It is, fundamentally, a privilege to have the resources to learn and adapt to meet the global skills shortage. I am a massive advocate of people digital skills like coding and cloud and prompt engineering, but no amount of enthusiasm can negate the fact that it is too damn inconvenient and inaccessible for most of us — not just in schools, but for adults, too — to meet the ever-growing need for these skills.
The opportunity to reskill, and so not be left behind, is exclusively reserved for those with the means and flexibility in their lives to do so; it takes financial security, along with the rest of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs being met, for anyone to make the time to study (either alongside, or instead of paid work), learn, practice, and begin working with new skills from scratch, even if you have every other advantage in the world. At the back end, coding is mostly in English, too — so those whose first language is not English have to work extra hard, intellectually, to ‘fit in’ to the tech sector.
It is impossible to shape technology without the skills to do so, and the skills gap is disproportionately affecting already unrepresented groups, meaning that overrepresented groups ‘hold the pen’ when designing and building digital services. This blocks progress not just for those who would benefit most, but actually, for everyone.
The available support and resources for digital skilling are no match for the demand of even the current state of technology, never mind that of tomorrow. As a result of this, the divide widens with every new skill needed.
Digital culture shapes culture
Now let’s talk about how we *use* or digital technology.
Digital technology undeniably has a huge cultural influence — like all media and communication forms. Professional, scientific and trade information sharing aside, this is socially very evident from the proliferation of slang, new terminology, memes, viral videos and influences across and among online communities and spaces.
Digital culture has begun to take on its own form, across a previously dis-connected world. While there are pockets where diverse communities and identities thrive, an increasing homogeneity — especially across younger generations on platforms such as TikTok — has begun to evolve, across broader categories of identity and self. This evolves as users explore and demonstrate commonality across geographical limits (you can see viral Spanish or Arabic songs being used in American TikTok videos, the formation of a uniquely ‘Black British identity’ online, the proliferation of phrases such as ‘neurospicy’ in neurodivergent circles, or — in a more menacing contrast — the rise of the InCel).
While the development of community built on shared interest is by no means a negative consequence, it is worth bearing in mind that there is always a ‘default’ and an ‘other’ in mainstream culture, and it is rarely the powerful who are undermined. New, more homogenous cultures are evolving in our online spaces, as a result of rapid and non-neutral digital evolution.
The internet’s ‘default’ is dominated by already dominant cultures and languages; the Americanized English language is a great example, which Russia and France are constantly trying to resist by formally creating technological and social terms. This resistance aims to protect their languages from ‘Anglicisation’, and young minds from the influence of a competing global culture (we will explore the neocolonial implications of this at a later date — but suffice to say, no surprises there). The story is even worse for ‘minority’ languages and dialects; users are getting a secondary experience where they choose not to operate in a culturally dominant language or format .
Algorithms are bringing people more of what they already share, with an emphasis on overconsumption of the same content and same ideals, and a ‘flattening’ of diversity, by the cultural dominants which already dominated. In terms of complying with the majority, it’s sink or swim.
Even more perennially than ‘propaganda’ and ‘social bubbles’, the general populous is so influenced by what they see, that it influences the ‘real world’. The two worlds, digital and physical, are enmeshed in our daily lives. Advertisements can be bought, cookies can recommend you new products, data you have signed away can be used to target you with political advertisements — all of these shape your day to day decisions, spending, activities.
Consumer goods sales and linguistic trends are one thing, but the role the digital world now plays for us all, also impacts economic power, political influence and cultural identity.
Digital Enmeshment
With all of this said, how significant is our dependence on technology, and how constantly are these inequalities being shaped? The answer is, very.
Readers who already have a level of technical understanding will be aware of the phrase ‘loosely coupled’ — and that is the opposite of our relationship with all things digital; the internet is as vital a utility as our energy sources these days, and basically none of our modern-day infrastructure can run without it.
Digital enmeshment is a term I will likely use a lot in this series. It is how I will refer to the enmeshment of the digital world with our lives; like the definition of enmeshment in psychology, we as a planet — and individuals — cannot separate ourselves, our lives, and our experiences from the digital world. Our identities are not separate from our digital lives, but reflected by and influenced by them. Such is life in the modern age.
Digital enmeshment is a huge challenge when it comes to addressing inequalities. We are both dependent on, and underserved by technology — because our access is uneven, unequal, and often unregulated. This has impacts far beyond our screens.
The digital lens we live through renders our lives almost a technocracy, it is that embedded. Every day we cast votes for the world we are happy to live in, through using the technology we use. Currently, the technology we use puts power in the hands of bodies run for profit, rather than the benefit of the global community. A few large companies and oligarchs, thus exert a lot of influence over us, our leaders, and our infrastructure, through their ownership of the industry and construction of paradigms our lives depend on.
We depend on digital technology for more than its practical functions, too. The way information is disseminated influences how we invest our time, money, and trust. An easy example is the fact that businesses and public figures are less trusted where their online presence is less well-maintained or visible, which of course disadvantages smaller players.
Now social media use is so enmeshed with our lives, over-sharing is the norm, and therefore under-sharing is suspicious. We need to ‘see for themselves’… even though there is no centralised approach to fact checking conspiracy theories, reigning in ‘internet sleuths’, or differentiating legitimate accounts from ‘fake news’ or even AI-generated material. Online legitimacy follows in the footsteps of a colonial preference for written, published record via a mainstream platform, but social media is without an editorial team — just the court of public opinion.
As with all written media, the inequality of access to the audience’s field of vision disadvantages both those without the means to promote their own content, and those without the technical education to critique content and resist being duped or misled.
The problem keeps growing
The challenge we have is that we are dependent on digital technology, and simultaneously underserved; our communities depend on platforms which take advantage of users, smart speakers contribute to our daily lives despite blatant security risks, and automations and AI product development are often built with the ‘shiny’, not the ‘safe’ in mind. A good dystopian example is that researchers are comparing general AI such as ChatGPT with the capability of medical practitioners; this is quite obviously hugely risky, and guaranteed to result in unqualified, sometimes dangerous, recommendations for those whose health is at risk — and, disproportionately, those who would be using such a service because they have less access to healthcare. And, that’s before we remember the medical racism, other prejudices, and general gaslighting linked to biased AI and bad data… which would produce proportionately less safe, reliable results for those users, too.
The ‘deployment’ and spread of technology exacerbates inequity on both local and global scales, practically and culturally. Access to skills and resources, and freedom from unfair influence needs to be democratic, from the star, as Tim Berners-Lee intended… and this needs acknowledging before we can hope to move the dial.
Follow along for Part 3 — Our environment is at risk
Reading List:
- The Milken Institute’s Tech Regulation Tracker and Digest
- Siddharth Kara — Cobalt Red : How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives
- Dr. Annabel Sowemimo — Divided : Racism, Medicine and Why We Need to Decolonise Healthcare
- Kyle Chayka — Filterworld : How Algorithms Make Everything the Same
